DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

96 to 1998-99. The provisions of section 10A(6) r.w.s. 80- I(9) of the Act, which were before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court are quite similar to the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act before us. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, upheld the stand that the requirements of the provisions

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia). He\nfurther submitted that from the books of account of the asssessee it was established\nthat these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18 and not the\n\"provisions for expenses” on which TDS was not deducted. He submitted that the\nassessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence that TDS was deducted during\nthe assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. SHARAD ANANDRAO DEORE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

TDS after filing ITR in violation of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any ground (s) of appeal. 11. The Ld. DR strongly objected to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit at 8% instead of sustaining

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PUNE

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

section 36(1)(viia) disallowance pertaining to bad and doubtful debts as the same is found to be a recurring issue between the parties. This tribunal‟s latest co-ordinate bench order in assessment year 2010-11 appears to have restored the instant issue to the assessing authority as follows: “3.3 Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE vs. M/S. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

section 36(1)(viia) disallowance pertaining to bad and doubtful debts as the same is found to be a recurring issue between the parties. This tribunal‟s latest co-ordinate bench order in assessment year 2010-11 appears to have restored the instant issue to the assessing authority as follows: “3.3 Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed interest on TDS of Rs.1,189/- and added Rs.1,189/- to the returned income. Ld.AR submitted that A.Y.2017-18 was unabated assessment. Therefore, addition could have been made only based on incriminating documents. Since there were no incriminating documents for A.Y.2017-18, Assessing Officer has not made any addition. Pr.CIT issued

LATA PRALHAD DESHMUKH,NASHIK vs. CIT(A), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24

TDS thereon of Rs.2,22,264/-. The appellant has furnished copy of Circular No. 36/2016 of CBDT and mentioned that "the RECTLARR Act” which came into effect from 1st January 2014 in section 96

SAMADHAN KRUSHNA KATEKAR,RAIGAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, RAIGAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Samadhan Krushna Katekar Vs. National 214, Narmada Krishna Niwas Faceless Dhutum, Jasai Uran – 400702 Assessment Maharashtra Centre Pan : Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent

96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 4. Mr. Nayak vehemently argued that both the learned lower authorities have rightly rejected the assessee‟s claim of assessment of interest income of Rs.1,80,94,690/- received as a consequence to the learned Reference Court‟s award enhancing land acquisition compensation

AZIZUDDIN LATIPHODDIN KAZI L/H OF DECEASED LATIPHODDIN AJIMODDIN KAZI,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

96 of the Right to Fair Compensations and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement(RFCTLAAR) Act, 2013 as well as in light of the CBDT landmark circular no.36 of 2016 dated 25.10.2016 clarifying the position in very terms. 4. I find no merit in assessee’s instant vehement arguments since the assessment year herein A.Y.2013-14 and the assessee

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

TDS post which the interest levy shall become inapplicable. Ground No.8: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Company under section 274 r.w.s. 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. regard. Hence, the subject penalty proceedings be overturned. Ground No.9: On the facts and circumstances

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

TDS post which the interest levy shall become inapplicable. Ground No.8: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Company under section 274 r.w.s. 271F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. regard. Hence, the subject penalty proceedings be overturned. Ground No.9: On the facts and circumstances

SARIKA VITTHAL GUND,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 66 can be made even for an unexplained credit amount on account of supply of goods, and not necessarily only for a cash credit SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on account of delay." 9.7 There is no documentary evidence on record to explain the sources of the credit entries. Further, as per the normal standard operating procedure no bank

SARIKA VITTHAL GUND,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 66 can be made even for an unexplained credit amount on account of supply of goods, and not necessarily only for a cash credit SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on account of delay." 9.7 There is no documentary evidence on record to explain the sources of the credit entries. Further, as per the normal standard operating procedure no bank

ROHIDAS BHIKU JAMBHULKAR,HINJAWADI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CIT (A), PUNE-3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2530/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rohidas Bhiku Jambhulkar, V The Commissioner Of At Hinjawadi, Near Ganesh S Income Tax (Appeals) Mandir, Tal.Mulshi, Cit(A), Pune – 3. Dist-Pune – 411057. Pan: Ahypj9277D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri J.G.Bhumkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sanjay Dhivare –Addl.Cit(Dr) Through Virtual Hearing Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2012-13 Dated 28.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of

section 44AD of the Act at Rs.3,96,707/- on the gross turnover of Rs.22,34,716/- and however, assessee failed to appear before both the Lower Authorities. ITA No.2530/PUN/2024 [A] 4. On the other hand, the ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 5. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed

SAMEER SHRIKANT PISE,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS credit allowed to the appellant by the CPC. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. Regarding the issue of charging of interest u/s 234 of the Act, it is held that charging interest under sections 234 is consequential in nature and mandatory. This has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H.Ghaswala

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

96,880/- added by him in the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction of road & bridge for various Government and Semi- government departments. It has filed its return of income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. LALIT RAGHUNATHRAO SHINDE , PUNE

96,075.00\nBy\nClosing Balance\nDen Manoranjan Satelite Pvt Ltd\n93/21, KUNAL PLAZA,\nYAMUNA NAGAR,\nNIGDI-44\nMedia Content & Communication Service\nLedger Account\n1-Mar-2008 to 31-Mar-2009\nPage 1\nCredit\nDate\nParticulars\nVch Type Vch No.\nDebit\n1-3-2008 To Opening Balance\n2,10,675.00\n1-4-2008 To (as per details)\nSales

JITENDRA KAPILDEO GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

96,31,721.00 Bajaj Finance 279135 10,25,25,911.00 Bajaj Finance 308517 99,63,771.00 Bajaj Finance 308592 4,98,18,854.00 10. Shri Jitendra K Gupta, the assessee, the main Director of the “company” holding 90% of shares and also holds 90 % shares in the other group company M/s Krish Auto (I) Pvt. Ltd., thereby, M/s. Krish Auto